#AskUdall: Why do you hate Colorado families?
PeakNation™, it’s Monday, we’re feeling frisky (had some Taco Bell for lunch), so let’s get a little wonky. You may have heard the Environmental Protection Agency is rolling through tomorrow (if Sen. Mark Udall is such a fan of it, can we expect him to be here in person to personally advocate for them?), and today the top climate advisor to President Obama claimed the tougher EPA regulations would be a boon for Colorado. The only problem for Udall and him is that their statements aren’t based in reality whatsoever.
Gov. John Hickenlooper and former Gov. Bill Ritter have already forced stringent regulations on us Coloradans to expand the use of wind and solar (but, not hydro, because in Hickenlooper’s world, hydro doesn’t count as renewable. Yep, someone tell Isaac Newton gravity just became a finite resource). According to the proposed EPA regulations all that reduction in emissions won’t matter. There has been no indication that the proposed 35% reduction in carbon emissions will factor in reductions already achieved. This means all those states that haven’t done anything to reduce carbon emissions will still have some low-hanging fruit to pick, while we here in Colorado have already snatched up the easy reductions. Any further reductions will be quite painful; thanks Udall.
From this, it is easy to see how some estimates have the price of electricity in Colorado going up a whopping 49% under these Udall-endorsed, EPA regulations. Not to mention, a loss of 2,400 jobs related to Colorado’s coal-industry. Hickenlooper’s war on rural Colorado continues with these proposals, as a full 9,000 auxiliary jobs lost are based in western Colorado. Those jobs only pay $116,000 in wage and benefits; surely, they can just be replaced by increasing the minimum wage to $10.10.
The real kicker for the EPA, is an article The Economist wrote last week that shows even factoring in carbon emission reductions, wind and solar are still a net loser when compared to coal. As it wrote:
If all the costs and benefits are totted up using Mr Frank’s calculation, solar power is by far the most expensive way of reducing carbon emissions. It costs $189,000 to replace 1MW per year of power from coal. Wind is the next most expensive.
… all this assumes a carbon price of $50 a tonne. Using actual carbon prices (below $10 in Europe) makes solar and wind look even worse. The carbon price would have to rise to $185 a tonne before solar power shows a net benefit.
…At the moment, most rich countries and China subsidise solar and wind power to help stem climate change. Yet this is the most expensive way of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.
That’s right, the price of carbon would have to increase by an incredible 1750% for us to see a total net benefit from attacking carbon emission reduction this way, and that’s including all the externality costs of carbon.
Now, if you’re Udall and the faux-hippie bourgeoisie of Boulder, the enormous costs foisted on us by these brutal EPA regulations might amount to just one less kale-fed, karma-injected, locally-grown, Buddhist-massaged, tofu lambchop a week, but for the rest of us that money is our kid’s tuition. The U.S. already leads the world in carbon emissions reduction; it’s ludicrous for us to even consider importing their failed policies. Too bad Udall is too busy hanging out with eco-extremists to recognize that.
Well, at least the had the ethics to note that the story had been edited/updated…oh, wait…Alan Franklin
Alan Franklin I noticed that. Originally it was 'coal industry' jobs. Its still poppycock…them arguing both that every coalmine jobs results in a full 10 additional FTE jobs; and the claim that a total of 9000 jobs in Western CO are 'coal related.' I live about 9 miles from Arch's West Elk mine, which employs about 300 people to staff 24/7 shifts.
Pete Kolbenschlag They edited in "related" after the fact to cover their backsides. And yes, it's still poppycock.
Eric Marlatt 'coal related' is still bullshit. Jobs that service mines don't only service mines. I know, I live in a mining community. You can't count each person that does something somehow related to coal mining or shipping or counting or loading as 1 FTE, its inflated gimmickry from the coal lobbyist. Then there is this: "as a full 9,000 of the jobs lost are based in western Colorado" << no.
alan, did you miss where he said "coal RELATED jobs"? just checking
Charles Buchanan furthermore, Sanderson says 'up to 9000 job in Colorado AND the West' How CPP gets from that to 9,000 'coal industry' jobs on the western slope alone is anyone's guess. It ought to be embarrassing. I mean for normal folk.
They're just clownish, even when they're attempting to be "wonky" as they self-describe.
The article's main citation is an opinion piece by Stuart Sanderson,
President at Colorado Mining Association and a much disputed study by Charles Frank of Brookings.
A string of invectives, unsourced and highly suspect facts as you describe, and a few non-sequiturial citations does not a wonk make.
According to the National Mining Association, there are 2,505 coal jobs in Colorado. The EPA's proposed carbon dioxide regulations would not put them out of work, and you quote a preposterous figure of "job losses" that's 10 times the total number of coal jobs in the state. Why does anyone read this blog? You can't seem to tell the truth about anything.
Furthermore, the Economist articles actually argues for better emission controls on coal, despite you using it to 'argue' the opposite: "The implication of Mr Frank’s research is clear: governments should target emissions reductions from any source rather than focus on boosting certain kinds of renewable energy." So, is it that writing for the echo chamber you just don't bother to actually understand the talking points you are so intent on spreading, and how actual fact does or does not comport? Or are you just that bad at research and analysis?
up to 9000 Jobs in Colorado AND the West (as in 11 states) and YOU write that the 9000 are all in Western Colorado???? Good lord, do you even think or just dribble out words in some order?
Either you don't know how to read, or you are a liar, or both. Seriously, the idea that there are 24000 coal industry jobs in Colorado is false on its face and anyone with a brain would realize that. In the article you cite Sanderson says 'could' cost 'up to' 9000 jobs' in 'Colorado and the West.' The quality of your work is disappointing to put it mildly. 24000 jobs. Why not just make it 7 million of you are going to invent BS? The mining jobs AVERAGE $116,000 not all the coal industry jobs, of which there are a few thousands in Colorado.
24000 coal industry jobs in Colorado. Please show your work.